Development of age-friendly city indicators in South Korea

Focused on measurable indicators of physical environment
  • Kwang Hyun Lee
  • Seiyong KimEmail author
Original Article


The purpose of this study is to analyze the age-friendliness status of 16 Korean cities and provinces using age-friendly indicators selected from our previous studies. In total, 52 indicators were used to focus on measurable indicators of physical environment in Korea’s present circumstances. The data employed to verify the age-friendly index were collated from regional statistics and studies by major Korean institutions. In order to compare the age-friendly index level, which consists of four primary areas, 10 sub-areas, and the 52 indicators, the indices of the 10 sub-areas were expressed as a spidergram. Despite limitations in the ability to ascertain details of present conditions and causes in each city and province due to the large scale of the survey, this study contributes to understanding the situation in 16 Korean cities and provinces based on age-friendly indicators and to providing a basic framework for periodic comparison. A more accurate and meaningful study would be possible if an analysis in relation to the size and characteristics of small- or medium-sized cities was included. Furthermore, the indicators selected from this study can be applied to other countries after revisions are made to reflect the individual circumstance in each country.


Age-friendly city Measurable indicator Age-friendly index Physical environment South Korean cities and provinces 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest



This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.


  1. Anusuya, C., K. Jaque, and I. Paul. 2014. Best cities for successful aging. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Institute.Google Scholar
  2. Busan Social Welfare Development Institute. 2016. A study on guidelines of development for age-friendly city in Busan. Busan: Busan Social Welfare Development Institute.Google Scholar
  3. Cronbach, J.L. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16: 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Francisco, P., D. Miguel, G. Joaquim, and P. Constança. 2015. Age-friendly cities performance assessment indicators system validation. Psychology 6: 622–632.Google Scholar
  5. George, D., and P. Mallery. 2003. SPSS for windows step by step: a simple guide and reference. 11.0 update, 4th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  6. Jeong, K. 2010. International trends in the establishment of age-friendly cities: Background and significance. Health-Welfare Policy Forum 168: 102–112.Google Scholar
  7. Jeong, K., Y. Lee, S. Lee, and S. Yoo. 2008. Development of detailed guidelines for the design of health and welfare models for the elderly. Policy Report of Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs 19.Google Scholar
  8. Jeong, K., Y. Oh, E. Kang, J. Kim, D. Sunwoo, M. Oh, Y. Lee, N. Hwang, K. Kim, S. Oh, B. Park, H. Sin, and K. Lee. 2014. Survey of the elderly in 2014. Policy Report of Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs 61.Google Scholar
  9. Kim, S., S. Chang, C. Oh, and S. Choi. 2014. Developing indicators for building elder-friendly communities in Korea. Journal of the Korea Gerontological Society 34 (3): 555–579.Google Scholar
  10. Kim, S., K. Kim, and H. Kim. 2008. Assessment of the city’s elder-friendliness in Seoul. A Research Report for Policy Task of the Seoul Institute 12: 1–177.Google Scholar
  11. Kim, S., J. Lee, and C. Oh. 2016. The degree of age-friendliness of living environments perceived by the aged focused on the physical environments of Busan Metropolitan. Design Convergence Study 15 (2): 203–222.Google Scholar
  12. Kim, Y. 2013. The present status and policy issues of welfare service for seniors in Korea. Journal of Korean Social Welfare Administration 40: 189–216.Google Scholar
  13. Kim, Y., and K. Ahn. 2011. Influences of neighborhood’s physical environments on physical and mental health of the elderly. Journal of the Urban Design Institute of Korea 12 (6): 89–99.Google Scholar
  14. Kim, Y., H. Nam, and J. Ko. 2011. A research on age-friendly city in Gyeonggi Province. Policy Report of Gyeonggido Family & Women’s Research Institute 21.Google Scholar
  15. Korea Older Worker Development Institute. 2016. 2015 Trends of job statistics for the elderly. Geonggi Province: Korea Older Worker Development Institute.Google Scholar
  16. Lee, K., and S. Kim. 2017. Development of age-friendly city indicators: Focused on measurable indicators of the physical environments from the perspective of the elderly. Journal of the Urban Design Institute of Korea 19 (2).Google Scholar
  17. Lee, M., and J. Lee. 2011. A study on the evaluation of aging affinity for Busan Metropolitan City. Busan: Busan Social Welfare Development Institute.Google Scholar
  18. Lee, Y. 2008. Review and implications for the development of an aging-friendly community in foreign countries. Global Social Security Today Fall: 2–13.Google Scholar
  19. Lee, Y., and Y. Jin. 2001. Development strategies of community facilities for the elderly. The Korea Spatial Planning Review 32: 77–93.Google Scholar
  20. NICE Public Health Collaborating Center. 2006. Physical activity and the environment. London, UK: National Institution for Health and Clinical Excellence.Google Scholar
  21. Scharlach, A.E. 2009. Creating aging-friendly communities. Generations 2: 5–11.Google Scholar
  22. Statistics Korea (2015) 2015 Statistics of the elderly.Google Scholar
  23. Statistics Korea (2016) 2016 Statistics of the elderly.Google Scholar
  24. World Health Organization. 2007. Global age-friendly cities: A guide. Geneva: WHO Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ArchitectureKyungil UniversityGyeongsangbuk-doKorea
  2. 2.Department of ArchitectureKorea UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations